In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

Just about a year ago, the familiar refrain leading up to the 2012 US Presidential Election boiled down to the basic tenet of American conservatism vs. progressivism: how much should the government take care of its people? More specifically, how “big” should the national government be, and what should be its role in the everyday lives of the country’s citizens? One of the major themes of the Republican National Convention was “We Built That”, an ethic encompassing the idea of personal empowerment–that individuals and businesses are capable of quite a lot on their own. It rejected the idea that “no man is an island”, insisting that hard work and determination are the only necessary ingredients for sustained success in the United States. A parallel theme of the parasitic “entitlement class” also took shape. Although every Republican would love to forget Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment, it’s instructive. It underscored and perpetuated the belief of millions of people that a large portion of American society is comprised of freeloaders. The “builders” work hard to make this country great, and the “moochers” suck it dry without contributing anything of value.

These themes are straight out of the RNC play book. Many Republican strategists still hold these beliefs. They argue that “smaller government” benefits us all. Who needs regulations? Let Wall Street run rampant. Dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency! Those nice corporations–after all, they’re “people”, just like you and me–would never overpollute the air water.

Well, those same leaders who have so strongly espoused the “builder” mentality have become the destroyers. In a purely self-indulgent, crybaby way, they held the entire country hostage. Make no mistake. This is not hyperbole, and it’s not a partisan view. Because a few select Congresspeople (mostly self-professed Tea Party Republicans) decided they hated President Obama, or the Affordable Care Act, or any accomplishment President Obama stood for, SO much, they decided to convince the rest of their caucus in the House to tie any budget bill to the defunding of the law they so lovingly call “Obamacare”. What the hell is this? They knew the president would not dismantle his “signature achievement”. They knew that the new fiscal year began on the same day that Americans could start registering for exchanges on the new healthcare plan. So why not put two and two together? They voted 45 times to repeal the ACA! The Democratic-led Senate turned it down or didn’t even bring it up for a vote all of these times because if you feed the trolls, they just bother you more. President Obama would not sign a bill “gutting” the ACA. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the law. President Obama won reelection, campaigning on the passage of the ACA. Public opinion polls consistently state that Americans feel favorably about the new healthcare law. If all of this weren’t enough, anecdotal evidence from people whose lives were saved due to provisions in the new law speak much more convincingly than those who don’t want to pay for it or who decide it’s government overreach.

I’m not going to get into an in depth discussion of the Affordable Care Act here, but the backbone of the legislation–the individual mandate–is a long-promoted REPUBLICAN idea. It is based on the principle of individual responsibility. Republicans hate moochers, remember? Progressives aren’t thrilled with the idea that the system is nowhere near a single payer (national healthcare) system, and there are quite a few issues with it; however, a minority of people can’t just do whatever they want to get rid of a law they don’t like because they “think it’s a bad law”. Too bad.

Those Tea Party Republicans in the House–who are mostly ideological people from small towns who have never held office before, and have no idea how the government works–were buoyed by more visible people such as fellow Senate newcomer and all-around attention whore Ted Cruz.
They pushed the country into a partial government shutdown. (I’m going to include a post on a government shutdown primer since not everyone knows what the shutdown entails.)

This has grave consequences for the country. True “patriots” would never do such a thing, and especially for purposes of bald self-interest. And in many cases, the term “self-interest” is completely apropos since some conservative Congress members are very worried about primaries in their gerrymandered districts posed by even more ultra-conservative candidates put up by ridiculously wealthy donors whose money (“speech”) can be spent nearly unfettered thanks to our lovely Supreme Court, whose justices, as we know, are ALWAYS looking out for the best interests of the people.

The government shutdown, now in it’s 11th day, shouldn’t have happened at all. We’re getting closer and closer to the date at which the national debt ceiling must be raised. As has been repeated constantly, paying off the debt is paying for costs already incurred. The county had to pay for money it already spent. Deciding to default (as some Republicans would like to do) is irresponsible at best, and ridiculous and disastrous at worst. The United States has never defaulted on its debt in its history, and the majority opinion on doing so is that this could very possibly equal a worldwide economic recession or depression, plus countless other terrible ramifications.

Republicans who claim that it’s now time to examine the dangerous path of ballooning deficit and the exploding debt (here’s looking at you, John Boehner), really have audacity. If they were so concerned about the economy, they wouldn’t have set in motion a government shutdown that has cost the country billions if dollars, and put nearly a million directly out of work. They wouldn’t play a game of brinkmanship with the possibility of default if the president and Democrats don’t agree to their ridiculous demands of significantly cutting entitlement programs.

Senate Democrats have already agreed to a compromise with House Republicans to pass a budget with spending at the levels House Republicans wanted (continuing the sequester), and “Speaker” Boehner reneged on his deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Boehner admitted this to George Stephanopoulos. Democrats already compromised with Republicans! “Piecemeal” legislative efforts by the Republicans or blaming Democrats and the president in front of National Parks and monuments for their closures as PR stunts are not “compromises” by the Republicans.

This is their fault. And they wanted it this way.

The once-proud “builders” are happy to set the fire, and to stand there and watch it burn.

Members of Congress continue to receive paychecks even as “nonessential” government workers do not, and the city of Washington, D.C. goes unfunded. Worse yet, members of Congress receive the gold standard in healthcare plans, and to date, no Congress member has turned this down. The people can pay for their perks, but not get paid or receive healthcare at an even slightly diminished cost?

I’m pretty sure that’s called mooching. What entitles the select few to receive benefits when others work hard? What ENTITLES them? Many of them aren’t even working for their constituents!

Susan Rice is being tapped as Obama’s new National Security Adviser to replace Tom Donilon. Undoubtedly, there will be uproar from Republicans at this after the much hyped-up (much ado about nothing) Secretary of State debacle of a few months ago. In case you forgot, many Republicans (both senators and media) personalities waged an all-out war against Susan Rice, the then-likely next Secretary of State, tarnishing her name after, as then US Ambassador to the UN, she reported what was later found out to be false information on the September 11, 2012 US embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya. Republicans vowed not to vote for her, bullying her into stepping out of the running. Voila! Now we have Secrekerry aka Secretary of State John Kerry, a person senators such as John McCain respect and feel comfortable with in the position–despite Kerry being a Democrat. The Susan Rice witch hunt can be viewed as a prelude to the Chuck Hagel–a person John McCain did not much respect or feel comfortable with in the position despite his being a Republican and co-chair of McCain’s 2000 Presidential campaign–witch hunt. (Crazy Republicans, tricks are for kids!) Somehow, miraculously, Chuck Hagel passed grueling confirmation hearings to become the current Secretary of Defense.

Anyway, getting back to the original story: the prospect of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser is bound to cause strife after the Susan-Rice-as-Secretary-of-State-debacle. I think this strategy to make her National Security Adviser is brilliant, however, from a political standpoint. If Republicans decide to wage unreasonable opposition yet again, Democrats–and the White House–can remind them of another Rice in the position of National Security Adviser. That Rice, Condoleezza, propagated tons of false and skewed intelligence information that led the United States into an almost 9 year war with Iraq. Oops. Thousands of US lives were lost and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. But 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, you say! What about the 13 embassy bombings under Bush’s watch? What about all the innocent people who died due to a drawn out war that we KNOW was a mistake? We’re not supposed to talk about that.

Anyway, the post of National Security Adviser does not require Senate Confirmation. There may be a lot of bellyaching from Republicans, but they’ll have to suck it up. I take issue with Susan Rice for other reasons, but the way Republicans used her for target practice in their crazed spree/politicization of the Benghazi terror attack is more than unbecoming. It is shameful. Good for Obama. Good for Rice. Perhaps bad for the country in the short term as the media whips a non-story into the next (non) controversy with wall-to-wall coverage. It will be fun to see Fox News in a tizzy, though. You almost can’t blame many of these politicians and their talking heads–when your “policy” initiatives in the Congress include such recent actions as voting to repeal “Obamacare” for the 37th time and defunding the now 3 years-defunct ACORN, using taxpayer money to do so–you need flashy distractions. Without the illusion of the Great Oz, all you have is a scared, deceptive man behind a curtain.

Susan Rice will be the next National Security Adviser. The Republicans will whine and stamp their feet. They’d do better to focus on actual policy. Didn’t they learn the lesson of 2012? Had enough Americans responded to their childish tactics, and voted for Mitt Romney as president, they wouldn’t be in this position today.

Yesterday, the best hope for any real progress in protecting Americans from gun violence was shot down.

The Senate voted on an expansion of the background check system for those seeking to buy guns. It’s important to note that this bill was a watered-down version of previously proposed bills on the expansion of background checks. The bill called for background checks to be performed at gun shows and prior to Internet sales. Because the bill expressly exempted background checks from being required for sales from gun owners to relatives and friends, it fell far short of the “universal background check” threshold. The bill was expressly written in such a way both to alleviate fears of too much government incursion in private sales, and as an attempt to make it more palatable to senators who fear the lobbying and economic power of the NRA. It’s also important to note that the bill contained a very specific provision AGAINST the creation of a national gun registry. Because some paranoid people think that the US government actually wants to keep lists of these people in an effort to confiscate their guns, efforts were made to assuage even those most ardent opposers. To think the government a. has their shit together enough to accomplish such a mass undertaking, and b. has the time and money to do so, reveals a tremendous faith in our system. (These are some of the same people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Which is it: powerful, Orwellian overreach, or staggering ineptitude? Make up your mind.)

I get it, though. There’s a fear that the government lies. Well, the NRA has demonstrably lied on a huge scale in order to push its pro-guns for everyone, everywhere agenda. The NRA is financed by gun manufacturers. Therefore, the NRA does the bidding of the gun manufacturers and represents their desires above those of actual NRA members. Of course gun manufacturers want as few restrictions as possible on gun sales. Gun sales are how they make their money. It’s not difficult to connect the dots. In fact, it’s a much easier connection than those reached by conspiracy theorists. Gun manufacturers have a vested interest in ginning up fear among the populace by distorting the facts, and telling people that “the government is going to take your guns away”, which translates into “Better get them while their hot–you never know when they’ll be gone for good!” This also leads to the idea that people need as much protection as possible against a “tyrannical” government comprised of SWAT teams and Special Forces soldiers who will kick down their doors in an effort to forcefully, physically “steal” their Cobstitutionally-protected firearms. Scary image, right? That’s why fear mongering is effective. And, in this case, it’s particularly potent because it preys on people who are already especially vulnerable to this type of delusional mindset. Never mind the fact that several Supreme Court cases as well as the Constitution itself is on the side of gun owners. These people who possess deadly weapons are defenseless against the Leviathan, didn’t you know? In their minds, their guns are the only things standing between them and such ridiculous and dangerous notions as state-run concentration camp style FEMA camps used to imprison citizens. What do you bet these people don’t even know that there are countries like Russia and North Korea who, right now, send political prisoners to ACTUAL work/slave camps?

Anyway, efforts were made to try to convince these people that their worst fears would never be realized. The government actually catered to THEM.

While the compromise bill was not as far-reaching as many would have liked, it was hailed as a historic and positive step. Its bipartisan nature was touted. It was drafted by Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two conservative senators who represent areas densely populated by gun owners. It was often mentioned how credibility was gained by the fact that both senators had “A” ratings from the NRA.

In a myriad of polls, at least 90% of the American people supported expanded background checks. Some polls said 91%. More than 80% of Americans supported universal background checks.

Even NRA head and soulless shell of a person Wayne LaPierre called for universal background checks in a widely-circulated video showing him testifying before Congress in 1999 on behalf of the NRA and its powerful lobbyists.

It was thought that in the wake of the Sandy Hook School massacre and the accumulated horror of all the mass shootings and smaller scale, but ubiquitous, gun violence, that it was finally possible to attempt to make the country just a little safer. As both Biden and Obama have said, if the life of one child, one person, or a hundred, or a thousand, is saved by keeping guns out of the hands of more convicted felons, domestic abusers, and those with severe mental illnesses, don’t we have an obligation to try?

As the families and friends of those who died and suffered grievous injuries in shootings looked on from the Senate gallery (at the very senators they had summoned the strength to share their stories with in an effort to prevent others from going through the same unimaginable pain in the future), the Senate killed the bill. The vote was 54-46, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joining the 46 and voting no once it became clear the bill wouldn’t pass in order to be able to bring it up for another vote in the future. Two of the women directly affected by gun violence shouted “shame on you” to those senators who voted no, from the Senate gallery. Former Representative Gabby Giffords, herself a famous example of gun violence, echoed this statement in an op-ed for “The New York Times” published today. As she explained how she has been robbed of the ability to speak easily since being shot in the head in Tucson in January 2011, she expressed being “furious” at the outcome of the vote. She is not only a former Congresswoman, a very visible victim of gun violence, and still, a gun owner, but she also co-founded Americans for Responsible Solutions, a PAC that aims to counter the incredible lobbying power of the NRA, with her former astronaut husband, Mark Kelly.

President Obama was very angry at a press conference he gave less than an hour after the Senate vote. He said that while “90 percent of Democrats voted for the bill, 90 percent of Republicans voted against it”. Obama explicitly called the NRA out on its lies to people.

The NRA erroneously claimed that a universal gun registry was to be created, and that it would be used to punish lawful gun owners. The NRA LIED ON PURPOSE–and, as Obama said, it worked. Unfortunately, enough of a “vocal minority” called their senators, and sufficiently scared them into voting against the bill. Members of Congress are so worried about being primaried in their next elections that they don’t represent the majority of people. As Obama resignedly asked, who are they representing?

Senior Senator from Connecticut Richard Blumenthal called yesterday the “saddest day of [his] public life”. He has been a tireless advocate for gun control legislation since the Sandy Hook massacre rocked his state in December. Yesterday was especially disappointing for millions of Americans, myself included. There are eight more gun control-related bills that are going to the Senate floor in the coming days. They are not expected to pass. As one resolute father of a six-year-old boy who was brutally murdered by gun violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School said, this is just the beginning. They knew it would be a long road, and they (all those related to victims of gun violence) aren’t going anywhere because they have no choice.

It’s difficult to be optimistic, but there are no other options but to give up. Progress often takes time. I’m hoping at least some of these senators are voted out next election cycle, and replaced by more progressive counterparts. Let them feel the power of votes firsthand.

Yesterday, an act of pure malice occurred. At around 2:50 pm, 2 bombs (and a little later, an unrelated explosion), exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The current casualty count is 3 deaths (including an 8 year old boy) and 144 injuries, many of which are amputations caused by the nearby bombs.

I was on the phone with my friend in California when my mom told me to turn on the TV. When I first saw the early coverage a few minutes after the bombs detonated, I said to my friend and to my mom, “This looks like a coordinated attack”. Police and other officials were very careful in the first few hours about calling the event any kind of attack or concerted effort. When Vice President Biden used the term
“act of terror”–which is what this was–the media went crazy about the significance of this term. All kinds of national security phrases like “post-9/11 world” were repeated ad nauseum by frenzied reporters and anchors who freely admitted they didn’t really know what was going on. When President Obama spoke almost four hours later about what had by then been clearly defined as an attack, the media noted that he did not use the words “terror” or “terrorist”. A quick lesson in semantics: Anyone who makes a deliberate effort to attack a group of people with the intention of inciting fear in the public is a terrorist. A terrorist is one who performs acts of terror, aiming to terrorize the populace. This is very simple. One need not be a member of Al Qaeda or a related group to qualify as a terrorist. In fact, there are plenty of types of terror that don’t fit this mold. Eco-terrorism is one example.

My point in writing this blog post is to criticize the media response in the immediate aftermath of this horrible event.

My main criticisms are that:

1. Reporters should not worry about nuance and policy wonkery, and they should call a spade a spade. Of course people are terrified (the very hallmark of an act of terror), and of course they’re sad. Our collective conscience has been shocked. Many of the racers and bystanders admitted that they were still in shock. The media owes everyone a clear explanation.

2. Do not tell people how to make homemade bombs on national television. An “expert” on CNN began talking about the various compositions of bombs, naming chemicals such as C4, and then detailing other, easier ways to make homemade bombs since stores are now on the lookout for people who buy large amounts of fertilizer at one time. Thank you for that information. I sure hope the wrong people don’t use that. Would it inspire anyone watching? Of course not. What a silly idea.

3. If you are going to show pictures, make an effort to preserve the privacy and the dignity of those who are severely injured. It’s an incredible understatement to say that showing people with blown off limbs and people who are lying, bleeding in the streets and unmoving as they’re carted onto ambulances adds unnecessary insult to injury. Aren’t there editors who are paid to make such executive decisions? There are always going to be those disgusting people who post pictures of the most gruesome injuries on websites devoted to such things. This is obviously disgraceful. Associated Press and CNN, however, don’t have to follow suit. All I’m urging is discretion in coverage. We don’t see flag-draped coffins of soldiers who died in war on TV, but we can see potential corpses of civilians?

4. Stop trying to argue political significance. We know, you’re as confused and upset as everyone. And that’s ok. That’s human, and that’s understandable. You do, however, have an audience of millions of people who come to you to find out what’s happening. You have an obligation to take the responsibility of journalism seriously. I know, you’re so used to pundits “debating” each other for countless empty hours, you may find it difficult to escape that ethos. It’s fine that it’s Patriots’ Day. No one has school in Massachusetts on Patriots’ Day. Therefore, there are more potential (and likely) victims because more people (including a large number of children) will be on the streets of Boston, possibly watching the Marathon. Even if these people are not watching the Marathon, they might just be in downtown Boston. Fine. Please do not speculate on the significance of Patriots’ Day to the attack. Do not enter conspiracy theory territory to fill airtime. It’s unbecoming, not to mention a disservice to your viewers, readers, and listeners. Wall to wall coverage does not a credible journalistic institution make. Speaking of credibility, I want to hear things like “There were no threats deemed credible prior to the race”. This is real news. Thank you. More of that, please.

5. Twitter may be a source of misinformation. As you claimed, a lot of early reports can turn out to be wrong. CNN, you, especially should know this lesson well. (Remember that not so little slip up you made when you reported that the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act aka the disdainfully mocked “Obamacare” plan? Yeah. Oops. Rick Perry understands your embarrassment.)
Because of the ephemeral and near instantaneous nature of tweets combined with the echo chamber effect of the network, secondhand citizen journalists are bound to get key details wrong. I know for a fact that, even hours later, people were tweeting incorrect facts on Twitter. I saw it myself. Just remember: Twitter is often not an authoritative source.

6. Do not kill the story. I don’t know where the line is, and obviously, the Boston Marathon bombings are a huge story. There are, however, many other stories in the country, and especially, the world. It’s ok to report on those too. If you keep showing the same pictures and build an entire cottage industry out of a story, not only are you being exploitative, but you are numbing people to the significance of the event by bombarding them with it, uninterrupted, for days on end. Unfortunately, this is what occurred with the Sandy Hooking shooting spree story and the Trayvon Martin shooting (and subsequent obsession with shooter George Zimmerman).

Terror is terror. If you’re so careful about your phrasing of something like that, you should be careful of many other things.

One other quick note. Everyone immediately offers their “thoughts and prayers” to the victims of any tragic event. I’m sure most people’s intentions are harmless, and they genuinely feel badly about what occurred. People want to express sympathy and compassion in the face of something whose horror they can’t reconcile. The “prayer” part of that statement, especially, irks me. Obviously, one’s prayers are not going to undo the horror. No one can turn back time. What I think is truly insensitive is the people who claim that god saved them–or that god bless and protect the souls of those so callously murdered or maimed. I will be very blunt. It is unbelievably selfish to think you were spared when others weren’t. Maybe these people don’t realize this, but they should. Maybe they have survivor’s guilt. I’m not sure. Whether this slight is unintentional or not, no one needs this fact rubbed in his or her face–that you’re ok, and he or she is not; all but for the grace of god, of course. That brings me to another quite glaring logical fallacy. What kind of merciful, omnipotent,omnibenevolent god would allow for such carnage? If the answer is that people have free will, god is not doing a very good job of intervening to “protect” the innocent.

The terrorist attack that happened in Boston was unexpected and horrific. I feel terrible for everyone involved, and it scares me that authorities didn’t pick up on something so significant before a major event like the Boston Marathon which welcomes people from all over the world. I’m somewhat surprised that they don’t have any suspects at this time. I’m also floored by the incredible grace, calmness, and patience dislayed by the first responders, the officials tasked with holding press conferences, and surgeons such as Dr. Fegan of Massachusetts General Hospital, who took time off his break to talk to the press. He gave general details in a tactful way, without betraying anyone’s privacy.

An event like this is difficult enough. I just wish people–especially members of the media–would make an effort not to make these mistakes when events like this occur.

Today (well, October 27, so technically, it’s yesterday) it’s been a year since I started my blog. Happy birthday to the little blog that could! I’d like to look at how things changed (or didn’t) in a year, both domestically and internationally.

To begin with, we’re no longer in Republican primary season–the U.S.
election is only 10 days away. (My second blog post, in October 2011, was about Hermain Cain, who was, unbelievably, leading the polls in the Republican primary at the time.)

The situation in Syria has gotten much worse. With estimates of over 30,000 killed, and many more detained, tortured, and missing, the Syrian crisis has deteriorated since its beginning in March of 2011. Bashar al Assad has remained in power longer than anyone predicted, and it doesn’t appear that “his days are numbered”, as everyone has said since the situation in Syria has gotten so horrific that it could no longer be ignored.

The narrative about Europe and the Eurozone crisis has largely remained the same. Temporary stability has been achieved due to (mostly German-based) bailouts of struggling countries like Greece.

There have been no global climate change agreements to which the US has been a party. This is, perhaps, one of the most disappointing and frightening modes of inaction to occur in the last year. We will surely pay the price for ignoring the effects we have on the climate. The common argument is that during an economic crisis, you can’t think long term. Wrong. You HAVE to think long term. Even if we can’t do everything overnight, let’s attempt to make substantial progress. Not doing anything is a cop out, and it will be fatal. We must begin, and I’m hoping that Congress passes actual legislation, and the second term of the Obama administration makes this a priority. In addition, green jobs are real jobs.

The Keystone XL pipeline legislation was not passed, and there is support by the Obama administration for alternative energy, but no legislation on the effects of climate change has passed. President Obama owes environmentalists, progressives, and the future of humanity.

The fiscal cliff (as a result of the budget deal) looms ever larger. This debt ceiling deal was, and continues to be, a terrible Hobbesian choice that never should have come up for a vote. The fact that ignorant and reckless Tea Party economic terrorists held the government and the economy hostage makes me seethe. The fact that the House will likely still retain a Republican majority of the very same (and maybe even more conservative and ignorant members) because people vote against their interests is even more upsetting.

President Obama expressed support for same sex marriage…after Joe Biden preempted his announcement. I love Joe, though. As he said in the Vice Presidential Debate against Paul Ryan, he always says what he means, and means what he says, and people know that about him.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed on September 20, 2011, but was implemented in the months following the passage if the act. And guess what? No one died–directly from gays and lesbians serving in the military, anyway.

President Obama passed a first step toward Dream Act-style legislation.

Elections changed leadership in France, Italy, and other places (including Arab Spring elections), while oppression and allegations of voter fraud prevailed in places like Russia, Mauritius, and Venezuela led to new terms for Putin, Chavez, and the arrest of Mauritius’s previously ousted democratically-elected leader.

On September 11, 2012, the now infamous Benghazi terrorist attack occurred, killing four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya. It was terribly tragic, and while an investigation is rightfully taking place, this event should not be politicized. Those who have politicized it should be ashamed.

In China, Bo Xilai’s corruption (and his wife’s murder of a British journalist), as well as the FoxConn disgrace, suicides, and strikes of workers living in inhumane conditions was revealed to the world. Even economic tigers have problems.

The “War on Women” has continued. I could write an entire blog post on this alone.

The world was stunned when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot. There have been several deadly shootings since then.

A No Labels candidate (the magical figure who was supposed to save us from the ever-increasing chasm of partisan divide) has not materialized. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, whose party and candidacy might be the most viable electoral alternative, was not invited to the debates. Neither were any of the other candidates from outside of the two main parties.

The War in Iraq officially ended. As per President Obama’s campaign promise, the War in Afghanistan is set to end–whatever that means, exactly–in 2014.

An unprecedented amount of money (much by outside groups) has been spent on elections this season. Over $2 billion has been spent on the presidential election alone. Think of all the other things that money could’ve been spent on.

Sure, there’s a lot to be disillusioned about, but a lot of things need to change. We don’t exactly have many other options. I’m optimistic about progress. We’ll see where we are a year from today.

I’m writing this with the perspective of having seen both the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate. I’d like to comment on the veracity of both.

I hope that anyone who reads this post will watch tomorrow night’s debate through a pretty straightforward lens. My main criterion is very simple: Support the candidate who tells you the truth. I know, it seems like a tall order. It shouldn’t, though. If both major party candidates lie tomorrow night, both should be admonished. While the candidates—and every politician—is ultimately responsible for what he or she says, the environment should not exist in which certain behavior (e.g., lying) is not only expected, but encouraged.

For some time, there has been a not so tacit acceptance that politicians lie. For at least as long as there have been politicians, the cynical belief that you can’t trust someone who seeks to attain and maintain power has been stubbornly cemented into the collective consciousness. To an extent, this ethic may be true. It is a logical extension of human nature, and has certainly been borne out by empirical observation.

The idea that a politician can lie to get ahead, that a person can—and should—lie to the very people he or she hopes to serve is not ok.

It is not the world of 1984. There is no (official) Ministry of Truth, passing off falsehoods as fact. Politicians and members of the media are responsible for disseminating true statements, not self-serving lies.

On October 4, Dana Milbank, widely read columnist for The Washington Post, said something shocking on Martin Bashir’s show on MSNBC. Bashir asked Milbank to explain an article he had written, defending Romney’s debate performance. Milbank ended up admitting that, yes, Romney did lie on countless occasions during the debate. He had no reason to believe that these lies were not deliberate deceptions intended to win the debate. Essentially, facts be damned. When pressed further by Bashir on the major ethical issues of running for the highest office in the country, and how such action certainly undercuts legitimacy, Milbank said that Obama “let him lie”, and that that’s how you play the game. Milbank said that after he watched over 20 Republican primary debates, he didn’t see how “you would expect anything different”. Milbank maintained that lying is fine and, in Romney’s case was an advantageous move. He thinks Romney owes the country nothing, and basically said that the ball is in Obama’s court to disprove Romney’s lies. Both Bashir and Milbank agreed on Romney’s “litany of lies”. Milbank saw no problem with these lies. Not only was he complicit in this disgusting system; he praised Romney in both a widely circulated newspaper editorial and on national television.

People should be very upset. The onus, however, should not be on every person to fact check every statement. Everyone should be informed, and people like me do fact check political statements, but no one should have to expect that lies are the default position. What are journalists for? Where is the media? Oh, right, certain members—the Dana Milbanks of the media—are not doing their jobs. I don’t care if this was an opinion piece. Dana Milbank should be ashamed for encouraging such behavior, and then for doubling down on his encouragement. Like Mitt Romney, “no apologies”, it seems.

Paul Ryan also lied in his debate with Joe Biden. Ryan has a habit of disavowing the truth. The moniker “Lyin’ Ryan” didn’t come from nowhere.

Yes, I’ve been picking on Romney and Ryan. I’m putting them under the microscope because they represent very vivid and pretty indisputable examples. This is not a purely partisan issue, and I don’t seek to be discredited by acting as if it is. Lying, no matter what person, party, or persuasion, is not acceptable. It is not how you win debates, and it shouldn’t be how you win votes.

Aren’t the candidates supposed to love and laud “the American people”? To politicians everywhere: what a tremendous slap in the face to the citizens you expect to vote for you. You’re supposed to be a public servant.

To be completely clear about why such lying is problematic at best and morally bankrupt at worst, I will list five reasons why the electorate should not passively accept those who seek to lead us deceiving us.

1. An “anything goes” downward spiral: The first excuse given by anyone seeking to apologize for a politician’s lies are “but the other side does it!”, as if this excuse somehow absolves their candidate of responsibility for wrongdoing. If evasive tactics haven’t worked (further compounding the lie into an often unmanageable, tangled web of more and more lies), and the candidate is stuck with “blueberry pie on [his or her] face”, as Al Sharpton likes to say, then the act of lying is used as a defense mechanism. We, the voters, are reminded that our candidate has to “fight back” against the barrage of lies being told about him or her by his or her opponent. We are to believe that every race is an arms race and that each campaign degenerates into a prisoner’s dilemma. Of course, it would be nice if the candidates each just highlighted their own records and didn’t have to lie, but unfortunately, once the “other side” does it, “our side” has no choice. We are made to believe that the only thing that can neutralize lying is more lying, whether or not the “other side” even lied in the first place. There is so much deliberate fabrication and spin, especially by outside groups (yes, I’m calling you out, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove), that it seems chaos is created intentionally to justify further lying. At least in the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction prevented each side from nuking the other because everyone realized it was in their best interest not to bring us all down. Politicians and their enablers would do well to learn a lesson from history.

2. The No Responsibility Ethic: If a politician is encouraged to lie (and takes the bait), in a debate, let’s say, then we can be assured that person has little in the way of scruples. This person is unlikely to take responsibility for lying, or for any of the consequences of his or her misinformation or disinformation. The candidate has a reputation to uphold! How dare you question his or her character? Do you really want someone in office, representing you, who does not take responsibility for his or her actions? The rest of the country is constantly reminded of the fact that we are supposed to take “responsibility for our lives” (here’s looking at you, Mitt Romney; yet, it’s more than alright for Romney to lie?)—I sense a disconnect here.

3. Unethical Conduct and the Trust Factor: This is very clear cut. Lying is unethical. Most people would agree on this point. Ask any focus group or perform any poll, and I can almost guarantee you that when presented with the idea of outright lying, this practice would be nearly universally panned by almost any panel. This idea cuts at the heart of our instinctive drive to trust others who have proven they are trustworthy. If someone will lie to you, how can you trust him or her? And should you trust him or her? Pick any point in human history. One person’s lie could have led to an early human version of you being eaten by a wild animal, or a seventeenth century version of you being burned at the stake. Trust is crucial to survival. Trust is earned and can be broken. Betrayal is devastating, even if it doesn’t result in one’s immediate demise. That is why we put such a premium on it. If someone betrays you, especially repeatedly, how can you trust this person?

4. Abuse of Power and a Sense of Elite Entitlement: We hear a lot about the divisiveness of politics, about how it’s wrong to separate people. From accusations of “class warfare” to charges of exclusion, we like to pretend America is one big, happy family, and that “united we stand; divided we fall” is an ethic to live by—until it’s not. This is only a categorical imperative for the lowly, the lesser. If politicians are allowed to lie, it sends the message that the rest of society is somehow not entitled to the same privilege, that an exception is made for the politician. Somehow, the view has been turned upside down. Instead of those who tell the truth being placed above those who lie, lying engenders a dividing line. Those who can lie with relative impunity live in the VIP room of society. They end up thinking they are allowed to act in a way contrary to the behavior expected of the general population, and how is this normally abhorrent behavior justified? Well, they must be special, or their circumstances are special. Either way, they are patricians to the rest of the American plebeians. They—the politicians—are the elite who must pay lip service to everyone else. This leads to the cordoning off of certain sections of society, like politicians, who are allowed to act in a way normally viewed as unbecoming for the rest of us. It leads to politicians thinking they are special, therefore, further separating themselves from being “one of the people”. One cannot expect to be accurately represented by such a person.

5. It’s Disingenuous: What’s real?: This is an important point: I’m not saying all politicians lie, and I’m not saying they do it all the time. If it happens even once in a presidential debate, however, that is one time too many. It’s unbelievable to me that there actually exists an adviser to the Romney campaign who claims that the campaign is not beholden to fact checkers. This statement is viewed by some as heroic. Really? Facts don’t matter? What else do we have? Suddenly, a campaign can create its own reality. Well, not only is that unfair, and the other candidates do not even stand a chance if fictional versions of themselves are presented to the public, but it’s pretty irrational and scary, not to mention incredibly arrogant. Facts do matter. Unbiased data is essential. Voters have the right to make informed decisions based on real evidence. No one should be allowed to cheat.

When you watch the debate tomorrow night, judge the candidate’s integrity. This is important. You deserve to be told the truth, and not to be manipulated. Demand a basic level of decency and honesty from politicians. Your vote matters. They are there to serve you, and lying about their records or their opponents in an effort to get ahead or pull one over on voters should be a disqualifier. Think about it: it would be in almost any other position or area of life. Those who make the climate comfortable for liars are equally responsible. Honesty and integrity are basic tenets. Telling the truth is the least people can do.

In the days following last week’s Democratic National Convention, there’s been a lot of buzz about the “significant” bounce President Obama received nationally. A litany of polls point to the fact that both the president and Democrats alike have higher favorability ratings and are seen as more trustworthy and relatable on key issues to voters—as compared to Mitt Romney and Republicans. Pollsters and pundits like to attribute this bounce to the “nearly flawless” Convention the Democrats put on. For all the talk of the “enthusiasm gap” among Democrats leading up to the Convention, it seemed the Republicans–with their bland speakers, non-detail specific plans, and most searing, visually, the lackluster crowd—comprised the party with the “enthusiasm gap”. The contrasts between the rousing call to action speeches, actual facts (which former present and all-around charmer Bill Clinton called “arithmetic”), and the diverse and engaged crowd, as compared to the Republican National Convention, couldn’t be starker.

Except that the Democratic National Convention wasn’t nearly flawless. Venue changes and speech scheduling issues aside, the “God and Jerusalem” issue of last Wednesday night is one that I would call a major flaw. Of course Democrats want to brush over it. One need only watch an obviously annoyed Nancy Pelosi repeatedly explain “it’s over” when asked about the event to know Democrats don’t want to talk about it. I bring this up not to taint the Democrats or the Convention. I want nothing more than for Barack Obama to beat Mitt Romney on November 6th. This event should not be swept under the rug, though. I want to feel proud of my party and I don’t want to think that it stands for fundamental unfairness and oligarchy, which is the conclusion I’ve drawn from the votes I saw and the (sham) presentation at the Convention regarding proposed changes to the platform. Besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the idea of including mentions of God in an American political party platform and I think the idea of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel is an abhorrent display of pandering at best and possible racism at worst, the fact that DNC organizers completely ignored the will of the people is irrefutably shameful and unacceptable. We should all be up in arms about the fact that this can happen in the United States—and on TV, no less!

Some background first:

The original Democratic Party platform contained no mention of the word “God”, and it did not include the idea that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. There were some murmurs about the alleged God snubbing part. I was very excited about this part at the time. I felt like, perhaps, real progress had been made. Perhaps the self-professed “party of inclusion” had finally made an effort to include atheists like me. After all, Obama was the first president to mention “non-believers” in his Inaugural Address. That freezing January day on the National Mall, I was there, and I felt hope. For the first time, I really felt included. This was not to be, however. It was reported that President Obama himself was outraged at the exclusion of God in the party platform and personally—and firmly—requested that it be included. Including the term “God” in the party platform is not just an affront to me—or to atheists. It is often argued that “God” is a generic term; unlike Jesus, it doesn’t denote any specific religion. Rather, it is argued, God is a stand in for a kind of civic religion, an American spirituality. In short, however, it is a belief in some sort of “higher power”, some sort of vague “spirituality”. Even if we were to accept this idea, there are plenty of religious people who don’t believe in the concept of one god, or even the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God referred to in speech after speech by speakers at the DNC, and certainly the one referred to in the revised platform. Sure, this concept of a monotheistic God more or less covers the big three: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The concept of this specific God does, however, leave atheists, agnostics, secularists, polytheists, and others, out in the cold.

The original Democratic Party platform also did not contain the explicit statement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (more on that in a minute)

At the opening of the Convention on Day 2 (or Wednesday, September 5th), some top Democrats seemed to have changed their minds about the content of their party’s platform. Perhaps they bowed to pressure (especially by Fox News, who, I’m sure, sought to discredit Democrats in any way they could), or they suddenly became alerted to their now-unacceptable omissions. Whatever the case, a voice vote was held. Former governor of Ohio and head of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, Ted Strickland, was introduced on stage by the Democratic National Committee Chairman (and current governor of Los Angeles) Antonio Villaraigosa. After Strickland talked about how he was an ordained minister and God’s very important to him and to the “American narrative” and how Jerusalem is, of course, the capital of Israel (though he didn’t mention anything about Israelis, Palestinians, or any reason that such a statement should be so important), Villaraigosa put the platform changes up to a vote from those in the audience. After the first vote, the “nays” seemed equal to the “yeas”. Villaraigosa tried again. The same thing happened, this time with the “nays” being shouted even louder. After hesitation and momentary panic—and after a woman on the side of the stage who we can only assume was another Party official said, “I think we’re just gonna have to let them do what they wanna do”—Villaraigosa tried one last time—with (surprise, surprise!) the same result. He then decided that, in his opinion, “two-thirds of the crowd voted in the affirmative”, and the changes were adopted. After this, very audible booing occurred from the audience. This, of course, was ignored, and what was done was done. Music was played in an attempt to drown out the prolonged booing from the audience, and the next speaker was rushed out in an effort to make a seamless transition into the rest of the Convention.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States? Many things, each party would have you believe, chief among them, each party’s differing views on how to move the country forward. This basically amounts to ideological differences in the role, scope, and aims of the federal government, led by either the overwhelming guiding principle of self reliance (Republicans) or the communitarian “we’re stronger together and all help one another” spirit of cooperation (Democrats). But, of course, we are all Americans, and each party will say that we are all united by basic American principles. These principles include that nebulous, but all important concept of “freedom” and that we are united by the shared belief and understanding of inalienable truths–one of those being the near sycophantic undying support for Israel. And, oh, by the way, if you even dare question Israel’s motives or say one critical word about Romney BFF “Bibi” Netanyahu, then you are anti-semitic (never mind the fact that the Semites include Palestinians as well as the Jews of the region), and are dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust. You will be cast out into the political hinterlands like one Jimmy Carter, never mind the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, but so did another US president, Barack Obama. So many similarities! No wonder our poor president felt such pressure to cave. The Republicans might try to weaken him. …Except that Republicans have already questioned Obama’s commitment to Israel (in detestable terms), and will continue to do so. The Romney campaign has blatantly told the public it’s not above lying (the famous phrase by Romney’s campaign that it “will not be beholden to fact checkers”), and campaign operatives know that vitriolic rhetoric plays well with racist, ignorant members of the Republican base.

This is part of what I wrote immediately after the incident at the Convention last Wednesday:

Obama wanted control of the message. Perhaps this will all blow over in the next few days, overcome by a tsunami of enthusiasm following the president’s acceptance speech tonight. I’m sure the Obama campaign staff and the DNC inner circle are betting on the fact that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten as Democrats indulge in the inspiring, empowering speeches of Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Julian Castro, Ted Strickland…except that Ted Strickland was the person who came out on stage, claiming his history as an ordained Methodist minister and pressing for changes to the Democratic platform. He is the face that stared at the panicked Antonio Villaraigosa as Villaraigosa asked the DNC delegation three times if it would accept the changes to the platform. When he confirmed changes, boos rang out. The admiration and affinity I had acquired for Ted Strickland, after hearing his fantastic speech the night before, had evaporated in less than 24 hours. It was replaced by feelings of anger and betrayal. I wonder if this is what Tea Partiers feel like when they claim tyranny of the government. I waited to write this until I had time to let events settle in, and I can’t see it as anything but tyranny. I know I sound hyperbolic, but how else would these actions be explained?

Religion should be separate from politics, and the United States should not be as involved in Israeli policy. What happened to “freedom” (of thought, dissent, and self determination)?

Everyone is entitled to his or her views. THAT is precisely the point I’m trying to make. The part about God and the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel were not originally in the Democratic platform. While I believe these things should have no place in the platform, it’s not up to me–or Strickland or Villaraigosa or Obama–hence, the vote.

These people, who seemed to amass more than one-third of the audience so much so that Villaraigosa asked three times, freaked out, and rammed it through, amidst very audible boos, had a right to be heard, and to be taken seriously. People are right to feel outraged and betrayed.

It is a party convention. The platform must be affirmed and adopted by those delegates in attendance. In this case, a two-thirds majority was necessary, and that number didn’t seem to approve of these proposals being added.

The adoption of the changes to the platform was pre-scripted and passed despite a great amount of obvious objection. Those who take issue with the platform changes, and the way in which they were adopted have no recourse for complaint. These people, the delegates, are representatives of American citizens, and are our frontline of so-called democracy. They are the representatives of our “representative republic”. If their voices are silenced or ignored, what other conclusion is there to draw than the fact that the people don’t matter to the party, that the many at the bottom matter little to those at the top? The voice of the people was overridden. It never mattered in the first place.

This is all the more ironic since the Democratic Party points to the undemocratic practices of its counterpart the Republican Party in silencing people by making it increasingly difficult for them to vote. For all of the talk of people-powered change and the progressivism of the Democratic Party during the convention, when the extension of such ideals was exercised, it meant nothing.

I’m more than disappointed. I’m angry, and I feel disillusioned and betrayed. I feel stung by a party that wants my vote, by a party that will appeal to me as a woman, as a young person, as a 99 percenter, as any number of labels, but that takes away from me the definition of the most fundamental identity of all—that of an American.

Rarely do Republicans agree with Democrats on anything–not even the American Jobs Act–so bipartisanship on any issue is (unfortunately) a big deal. That bipartisanship came not in the form of legislation, but in calling for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to release an extensive record of his tax returns.

While Romney has released a year and a half worth of returns, and has done the bare minimum required (as is the Romney way), the public is still not satisfied. As Jon Stewart so aptly put, Romney only released returns from “when he was running for president” in the 2012 election (meaning that he was aware that he was under special scrutiny and may have sanitized certain things for public consumption). Every day Romney refuses to release more tax returns, the political fallout increases. On yesterday’s “Good Morning America”, Ann Romney said, “We’ve given you people all you need to know”, sparking outrage over her use of “you people”, basically because she condescendingly accused her fellow Americans of being peons far below the aristocratic–and exceptional–Romneys. This “special treatment” ethic that the Romneys seem to believe they deserve is the biggest problem with the whole taxgate issue.

Unlike pundits who speculate that Romney must be hiding something terrible, I seriously doubt there is anything illegal in Mitt Romney’s tax records. The problem is that the system allows for the kind of “institutional advantages” that make possible vast economic inequality in America. Romney just reaps the benefits.

Mitt Romney has a myriad of personality flaws. There are reasons he seems out of touch and like he’s keeping others at arm’s length. He’s not forthcoming. He’s always vague. He’s not transparent. He lacks ideological convictions. In short, he’s not trustworthy. And he has money in overseas accounts. It’s not a good combination.

The unscripted Ann Romney moment served as a lightning rod because it so clearly epitomizes people’s fears about the Romneys and their relation to the majority of the country. Can you see Michelle Obama saying “you people”? The opposition would be on her SO FAST. For that matter, can you imagine Barack Obama not releasing his tax returns? (And he doesn’t even have his father’s vaunted example to live up to.) Certain Republicans, advanced by their trustworthy mouthpiece Fox News, have called for the president’s sealed documents, including high school and college transcripts. They do this to create a distraction, as if there is some false equivalency. There’s not.

Mitt and Ann, you’re not special. It’s beyond insulting that you think you are. Running for president is the great equalizer, and no one is spared the scrutiny–especially not those whose extreme wealth and secrecy have been used to insulate and separate themselves all their lives from the citizenry they are running to serve.

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA for short). In the ruling of a lifetime (really, how often do non-constitutional scholars get this excited about anything involving the Supreme Court?), the Court upheld the entire law as constitutional, aka, legal. The details were very exciting, but I won’t get into them here. That’s not what this post is about.

This post is about the fact that certain segments of society have taken up the most selfish, bigoted, irresponsible, opportunistic, and ignorant views on this subject that it makes me embarrassed to call them fellow citizens. It is one thing to disagree with the nuances of the law. I certainly don’t think the law is perfect as is. I would even understand if people openly stated that they don’t care about other people and don’t want to pay for them. At least they’re being honest. It’s quite another to brandish your argument in fancy words and pretend you’re all about cost control, “freedom”, and “judicial restraint”. While I’m probably preaching to the choir, and it’s not like my blog post will reach Cantor and Co., I feel compelled to spell out two arguments for the necessity of health reform.

The moral argument: You’ve heard the statistics. 50 million people are uninsured in America. That’s nearly 1 in 6. Those who are insured may be underinsured, or may take a job or remain at a job because they need the healthcare provided by their employer. Pre-“Obamacare”: Lifetime caps on coverage were instituted, making it impossible for many people to pay their medical bills, medicines were more expensive, contraception cost more money, those with preexisting conditions such as breast cancer (yes, really) were routinely denied coverage altogether, and there were gaping holes in insurance coverage for young adults and rising costs for senior citizens. Nearly 50,000 people a year die because they don’t have health insurance. This is a staggering number and should be unacceptable to any human being. The United States, an industrialized country, and the wealthiest country in the world by far, has no excuse. Politicians love to brag about how the American medical system has the finest doctors and the best technology in the world. Yet, we charge people exorbitant amounts at the emergency room, and let tens of thousands die per year. It’s often said that reason is the better tack to take in an argument as opposed to emotion. In this case, there’s no way to leave emotion out of it. Sickness and suffering is an emotional thing—especially if much of this suffering can be alleviated, and care can be provided for all.

The economic argument: For those who don’t care about the morality of the matter—or who have compassion, but “don’t think we can afford” to overhaul the healthcare system right now—there is a very strong economic argument to be made. Currently, healthcare accounts for 18% of the country’s GDP. To put that number in perspective, the United States government spent approximately 1% of GDP on the space program at the height of the Cold War, and that was a lot of money. This 18% is not stagnant, either. When people say that healthcare costs are “spiraling out of control”, and need to be contained, they mean it. Healthcare will eat up more and more of the budget, and soon, we won’t be able to pay for anything else. This is not meant as a scare tactic, and it’s not wild speculation. It’s the truth. Insuring more people, providing preventative care, preempting emergency room visits (the only way some people get treated), neutralizing risk, and creating a climate of stability will bring the costs down significantly. Sure, it will take a few years, but inaction is worse. If the U.S. had taken significant action on climate change decades ago…but I digress. Doctors, hospitals, patients, and healthcare experts all agree that the fiscally responsible thing to do is to go the way of the ACA.

The free rider problem: This is about who we are, as Americans, as a society. Like it or not, we do live in a society, and this concept carries with it certain responsibilities. Given the choice, individuals will act in self interest, aka, not take care of someone else. People will also not pay for things they don’t want or don’t see a need for—or, especially, if they feel the “intrusive” government is “shoving it down their throats”. Unless that something is on an infomercial…maybe the government should’ve tried to selling healthcare reform on TV at 3 in the morning. The point is, people need to be mandated to buy insurance to neutralize risk and to control costs for everyone. There needs to be a penalty for noncompliance to ensure people participate and that the program is successful. Also, it’s not as if people never get sick or hurt or old. It’s really an investment. Many of the people who don’t want to buy health insurance are the people who end up needing it the most. Those who can’t afford it will be aided. We live in a society in which cooperation is key. No one lives in a vacuum and became successful or self sufficient by himself or herself. A real patriot would want to do what’s best for the people in his or her country. Any person who wants to live in a successful society—really just an outgrowth of the idea of favorable environment—should understand and internalize this fact. We need to work together in a society, and sorry, Ron Paul, libertarian tendencies of hoping the “members of a church” will help someone in their community who is sick is unrealistic, unpredictable, and unsustainable.

In the 2 years and 3 months since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, it seems all Republicans have been doing is mounting a relentless P.R. campaign against the “monstrosity” they call “Obamacare”. When the scare tactics of alleged “death panels” didn’t catch on much beyond Tea Party circles, Republicans aimed for greater legitimacy by claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. Eventually 26 states advanced this charge, and the healthcare law made it before the Supreme Court. In reality, behind the scenes much debate was going on within the Republican Party. In the last few months, talking points started to shift from “gutting the whole thing” to “of course, we’d keep the most popular parts”. While “replace and replace” became the de facto sound bite for any politician with an “R” attached to his or her name, the issue of what to replace their dreaded Obamacare with became more real. The sobering reality, once the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the constitutionality of the law in March, was that the Republicans must provide a viable alternative to the “2,700 page” legislation they had worked so tirelessly to strike down.

Herein lies the issue. As many have observed, prominent Republicans seemed to want to keep many parts of the law that proved popular. Their main opposition (beyond some of the issues with women’s health coverage and other so-called “liberal” provisions) was to the individual mandate part of the law. They didn’t like the loss of freedom imposed by a mandate forcing people to pay for healthcare. Their claims about the mandate, like all of their other claims about the law, were, of course, greatly exaggerated and distorted. Hyperbolic or not, Republicans didn’t like the idea of a penalty and infringement on individuals’ all-important “liberty”.

Cue the free rider problem. Also, isn’t denying people healthcare coverage an infringement of their liberty? “Life” comes before “liberty” in the Declaration of Independence. Without life, the pursuit of liberty and happiness become nonexistent. Besides, a lot of people are stupid. That’s not very diplomatic, but it’s true. When they need it, people want government to step in and protect them from their mistakes or when they’re at their most vulnerable—then it’s ok, apparently. In addition, people’s “liberty” often adversely affects other people, and everyone would admit that security (in this case, harm minimization) is the government’s role.

You would think that Republicans would be satisfied with the law because it helps big business. Insurance companies, overall, end up the big winners. The ACA is nowhere near nationalized or universal healthcare. That “Romneycare” was the blueprint for “Obamacare” need not be mentioned except to draw attention to the humor and irony involved in the opposition presidential candidate’s contortions around such a personally damaging issue. Hypocrisy at its finest. In fact, Romney, too, notably changed his tune in his speech following the Supreme Court decision which upheld the ACA in its entirety. Romney wants to keep certain provisions in place such as keeping kids on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26, not denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, and maintaining competition between plans. Some Republican politicians have gone even further to endorse the provision of stopping lifetime caps on care. How to pay for all of this, though, without the mandate? The lynchpin of the law, much like the “automatic trigger” of sequestration enacted after the debt ceiling debates, was put in place to hold people accountable. Otherwise, they will “kick the cab down the road” forever and people will not take responsibility, not individually, and certainly not for the wellbeing of society. The conservatives, who always stress sustainability, have spit in the face of a plan whose central tenet–the individual mandate–they, themselves, designed.

Do they want freedom or security (read: liberty or sustainability)? President Obama’s Democratically passed law provides some measure of both. It aims to address spiraling healthcare costs and provides much choice and increased coverage for millions of people. Almost everyone in the United States is impacted by this law. It is by no means perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, and if Republicans are still so up in arms about it–and not just because they’re sore losers, hate Obama, aren’t too fond of women, prefer the status quo, and will cling to power at all costs–then it’s a positive sign.